Telecom nightmare

When we moved in to our rental flat at the beginning of October, we called Telecom to provide us with our telephone (landline) service. While we were on the phone with them, they offered us cell phone service. After agreeing to provide us with 2 free cell phones, we signed up for a 3 year contract. A month later, we received our first bill with a charge of $200 extra for our cell phones! We immediately called their customer service number and was told that we HAD agreed to pay $200 for the phones and they had recorded our conversation with their representative of the transaction! They said that they would call us back and play the recording (which of course, they did NOT - since it does not exist!). Repeated calls to their customer help number produced no results...each time when we asked to speak to a supervisor, we were rudely told that was not possible. We received our second bill recently with those extra charges AGAIN and a $75 fine for not paying it earlier! Mind you, we have paid our landline bill and attempted to resolve this dispute a number of times. My husband called them yesterday and was told that it is NOT their policy to resolve disputes - they just keep billing their customers and then take it to collections. We are anticipating them cutting off our phone service soon and we are looking into advice from a lawyer to take them to small claims court. Mind you, all this time, we had NOT used our cell phone even one time and we said that we would send back the phones to them since they were "not free".
I guess this is the result of monopoly and the nature of people afraid to lodge complains against companies (like MB's article aout banks)! Come on people! Stop letting these companies step all over you!

Re: Telecom nightmare

That's a very apt title to this thread, Julie. *What on earth is the matter with these people? *I think they've had some bad press in the past and I'd be inclined to mention in passing that I was thinking of writing to the newspapers about the situation. *What they're saying to you is that they're in the right and it's up to you to prove otherwise. *They have a really bad attitude which needs to be brought to the attention of the general public and those in authority who could do something about it. Why mention they have a recording of your phone conversation if they won't let you hear it? Sounds like they are deliberately trying to intimidate you into submission.

I don't know if a lawyer could write a formal letter to them setting out everything that's happened and which is addressed to a higher entity than you're dealing with on the end of the phone.

Re: Telecom nightmare

Telecom ordered to open up lines
13 December 2006

After years of controversial debate a bill forcing Telecom to open up its copper wire network to competitors passed in just a few hours.

Telecommunications Minister David Cunliffe said history had been made and the passage of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill would bring faster and better broadband service. The bill splits forces Telecom to undergo a three-way operational split, with retail, wholesale and network arms.

The minister and Commerce Commission will have wide-ranging powers to monitor and enforce access to the local telephone lines - commonly referred to as "unbundling the local loop" and regulate other aspects of the telecommunications network.

When the bill went into select committee it proposed just separate accounts for Telecom's business arms, but after six months of consideration came out with a much tougher regime.

MPs today completed the three remaining stages of the legislation in just over two hours, a process which can sometimes take days. The lightning fast passage was in stark contrast to the glacial movement of telecommunication regulation in the past.

Telecom's competitors have long complained of its anti-competitive practices and endless litigation, but successive governments have been persuaded to a relatively light-handed regulatory approach.

A previous Labour telecommunications minister Paul Swain fought to unbundle the local loop, but was overruled by Cabinet.

Under National, Telecom persuaded then telecommunications minister Maurice Williamson regulation was not necessary, but Mr Williamson in recent years has made it clear that Telecom did not deliver on its promises to him.

At the beginning of this year, Prime Minister Helen Clark said one of her Government's goals this year would be to lift access rates to broadband and reduce the cost to consumers.

Miss Clark said she was concerned New Zealand lagged well beyond other developed countries on broadband access and wanted this to improve to lift productivity.

In attempt to stave off regulation Telecom tried to lift broadband uptake rates, the speed it worked at and lower the price, but did not do enough to persuade the Government not to act.

Telecom shareholders were stunned when in May 3 Mr Cunliffe hurriedly brought forward a planned budget day announcement when it was discovered a Telecom executive had been given a copy of the Cabinet paper approving regulation.

The decision struck billions off the value of the company, but it was later discovered a Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet messenger leaked the paper directly to the Telecom executive as he was friend. No evidence of insider trading was ever found.

Despite the bill's tumultuous past it barely raised an eyebrow as it passed in Parliament today under the traditional Christmas time urgency.

Only ACT opposed the bill as it past by 119 to 2. ACT Leader Rodney Hide said the bill unfairly legislated away Telecom's property rights. He argued that international investors would be put off New Zealand because of the potential it could happen to them.

Other MPs pointed out that New Zealand was one of the last countries in the western world to take regulatory action against incumbent virtual monopoly telecom companies. Other MPs expressed concerns that the bill did not do enough to ensure the more remotes parts of New Zealand received high speed internet access.

The Maori Party was unhappy that the bill did not ensure Maori gained part of the telecommunications sector which it was entitled to under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Mr Cunliffe said the Government had a firm mandate to take action. "Kiwis are demanding fast, 'all you can eat' broadband, which this legislation is designed to deliver," Mr Cunliffe said.

"I welcome the fact that the telecommunications industry has already responded to the reforms in this legislation and is working collectively towards a digital future where Kiwis can realise their economic, social and cultural aspirations."